I miss Reagan

The liberals are brilliant at maintaining power. They'll morph into, or at least project an image of exactly what they think Canadians want in a government. Then they'll govern the same as they always have. And with such a sympathetic media, how can they ever lose.

If Moore were genuine and practiced what he preached, he'd give all of profits from his movies to, unemployed plant workers, gun control advocacy groups, and the 9-11 victims. He'd live in a modest trailer in Flint and maybe keep a decent 60,000 wage. I don't think any ideology is devoid of hypocrisy. Perhaps it's just my right wing bias, but I see more gross hypocrisy among the left, particularly Canadians. But to be fair I will say I don't think Bill O'Reilly should lecture the left on family values when he's sexually harrassing co-workers. I think it's also quite hypocritical how the southern bible belt of Christians also has by far the highest incidence of violent crime. Or right wing Christians who have little compassion or forgiveness for the weak in society.

BD, ya I don't think Suzuki is the worst. From what I understand he throws away only 1 garbage bag a month by recycling and refusing to buy goods with a lot of packaging. That's pretty impressive. I guess my beef is being lectured or preached to. Moore, however, I believe is on par with the rest of the limosine liberals. Maybe he's is the embodiment of the American dream, but he's the guy who seems to most hate the American dream. His message seems to be railing against the wealthy and making money on the backs of the poor. Isn't this what Micheal Moore has done? He preaches to Americans about overindulgence yet he weighs over 300 pounds?

Well then if you are a man, lets see some maturity here and post some arguments rather than emotionally charged insults.

Shocking. I'm wondering how so many Canadians can rip on Fox News when they haven't had access to it. Perhaps people should actually watch Fox News, instead of watching a clip of O'Reilly or a couple articles in the Globe, before they rip on it. Yes O'Reilly's commentary is not left. He has a show on the Fox News channel. There are also leftys on the station like Alan Colmes and Greta VanSustren.

Perhaps Osama should be lecturing people on the environment not American culture eh. After all he does wear an American made Timex.

Well maybe they are. Perhaps if someone despises capitalism so much they should move to a more socialist country like Sweden. Someone who claims American clothes are produced on the backs of the poor working in sweatshops probably shouldn't be wear nikes. Reminds me of my good environmentalist buddy. He starts hammering McDonalds, claiming they destroy the rain forests... at the same time he chomps down his Big Mac. BD is right, hypocrisy is everywhere, it's human nature. It's the gross hypocrisy I'm talking about. No one should fault Suzuki for flying on polluting jet planes to get his spread his message. However, you can fault him when he makes condemning statements like "anyone who drives an SUV doesn't give a shit about the environment" then takes part in behaviour unbecoming of his mission. I don't appreciate him dictating what kind of behaviour is appropriate. Michael Moore shouldn't exhort himself as "working man of the people" when he's living the high life in NYC and raking in millions at their expense. Venom? no. impassioned perhaps. Let's not get off on a tangent here but Bush and many of us who like believe the waging of war in Iraq has saved millions of lives. I guess you could say the same thing about other leaders who took their countries to war. Clinton, Howard, Chretien, Churchill etc. Ya I don't know. Who is he to lecture me how much water is nessesary and what size of house to live in. I have my own personal feelings on what is excessive. I'm not sure someone needs to drive a BMW over a Honda. I'm not sure people need to live in giant houses. But who am I to tell them? This would be a good new topic for discussion, how much is really too much.

Well in this country the plutocrats seem to all be liberal. I think the US has it's fair share as well, Kerry and Edwards weren't too bad off, neither were their supporters. That's fine, it's when they preach against their own behaviour or the esablishment they have become a part of. It's like the guy who become rich off of sweat shops then uses his money to start a charity to ban sweat shops. It's hypocritical. Once again these guys' actions are so blatently hypocritical it's offensive. Suzuki and Moore loudly proclaim the evils of capitalist society while at the same time they enjoy the fruits of it. And no they don't use it as a tool to get their message across, they enjoy the high life. Dubya may be rich but at least he's an advocate for capitalism.

Blackdog may have a case, when you think about situations like that movie about 60 Minutes and Big Tobacco what was it called? Not that I put a whole lot of weight in Hollywood story telling.

I think you're right. But I think many people listen to it at least with that caveat. For the most part they announce and are unapologitic for their political ideolgy. The difference is when you watch CBC news you get no warning. It's the subtlety of the bias that's the problem.As for the memo incident, I half agree. I think Dan Rather was just trying to get the story out. I don't think he had malicious intent. I do think his underlying bias may have played a part in not being as cautious as he would have been if the story were about Kerry. But I think there was malicious intent behind the scenes by people like Mary Mapes was it? who brought out the story and obviously the people who forged the documents. I think such people should be charged.

Interesting because that's kinda how I'd describe liberals. I see the liberal agenda as this elitest mentality of stealing from the middle class to give to the poor and then take credit for it. It's epitomized by hollywood types for example who made televised appeals for average Americans to give after Sept. 11 while at the same time they gave reletively little. In people like Walter Cronkite and the Kennedy's who give a lot of lip service to the environment but when it comes to wind power in Martha's Vinyard they're just a bunch of NIMBY's because it irritates their lifestyle. In rich people like Paul Martin who keep companies off shore to avoid the taxes they impose on the average Canadian. In people like David Suzuki who lecture people that "anyone who drives an SUV doesn't give a shit about the environment" yet have fancy dinners on fossil fuel guzzleing yahts. I think liberals love the elitest lifestyle of benevolently bestowing their gifts upon their loyal subjects. Personally I go with the 'teach a man to fish' principle. At this point in my life I'm certainly not rich. But I'm glad my employers have some money and an incentive to stay here and employ me. As for "a slice of the pie", I think this is where we differ, this sense of entitlement. I think people should work for their piece of the pie.

There is bias in all media, however some have more bias than others. When you have people like Ted Turner and yes Rupert Murdoch in charge of media outlets with an agenda to push you'll get overt bias. It wouldn't be so bad if there were an equal number of left and right leaning reporters, producers, directors, bureau chiefs etc. But there hasn't been. Most of the time I think people like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are well intentioned and try to be objective but it is impossible for them to be completely objective. So people have decided that if they're going to get biased news they might as well go somewhere they can agree with the bias. So they'll go to talk radio or Savage or Stuart Smally. At least you know where these people are coming from, they admit their bias. What is offensive is when you get people like Peter Mansbridge and Christianne Amanpour among others who pretend to be relaying objective news when in fact they are subtly pushing their opinions on the viewers. This is why mainstream media is on its way out.

Come on, if you're going to try to insult me at least come up with something original. So give me a hand with my comprehension here because you seem to be contradicting yourself.Man, now I understand why you guys hate us so much though, you actually believe the propeganda in the Canadian media about us. You really believe those sappy Paul Martin election ads. What I find funny is we're villified ten fold when we try to fight back the same way. Kinda reminds me of the story of the guy buried up to his neck in the Roman Collosium. The lion comes out and the guy bites it in the n*ts and the centurion comes out and jabs the guy and says "fight fair". So tell me more about the conservative agenda as you see it...

How did France ever get vetoing power in the first place. What use is the UN?

Yes but you and your buddies on the forum have used similar language in describing Christians as well as Americans. If you were my boss I'd have a good human rights case.

The whole problem with the environmental movement is it's radicals have turned people off. No one wants to die of cancer or live in filth from polluters. The same way radical evangelicals have turned people off religion with their preaching, blowing up abortion clinics, and self-righteous attitudes so have eco-facists with their blowing up SUV's, ski lodges, oil wells, self-righteous preaching, and exagerating and lieing about the environment. Now people are beginning to throw the baby out with the bath water, because of irresponsible organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

No accolades and degrees are only worth anything when you agree with them, as is clearly evident with your comment "he's not even a good statistician". A technique David Suzuki has perfected, when you can't prove his science wrong, go for the personal attack. Nevertheless, I think a statistician is an ideal candidate for tearing apart those who choose to lie using stats. Well that article itself was described as "highly political, rhetorical" and used hand picked biased scientists rather than random experts. The editor himself displayed his own lack of objectivity in using emotionally charged language calling the book worthless. Even more the editor wouldn't even allow Lomborg to respond. If we're going to look at reviews by respected scientists, lets look at some who describe his work as "brilliant" or "credible" Of course I understand why so many scientists would be up in arms. It threatens not only their political agenda but their livlihood.

You do a good job Greg but IMO a ban for using the word "fiberal" was a little harsh. The statement is an attack on idiology not on any one person.

Ah yes Bjorn Lomborg, the evil villian. Nothin like an original greenpeacer Phd in statistics who goes out to prove opposing science wrong, only to find out they're right. Talk about a leftist's nightmare. I love it how accolades and letters at the end of one's name are so relevant until you guys disagree with them. Then it's "oh well he's a sell out to industry" or "oh he got into Harvard and Yale because of daddy". Lol. As for Crichton's qualifications, I guess you could say he's as qualified to talk about climatology as many of the other self- purported experts, like Suzuki (a biologist). He has an MD from Harvard and years of study on climate change. I don't really think he needs the money, he has quite enough from other successes. If we're going to talk about money as a motivation I think we should look at the incentive for environmentalist leaders to keep everyone afraid that the sky is falling. After all, environmentalism is now a multi-billion dollar industry.

enviro's capitalize on tragedyCrichton's book seems to hit the bullseye with the chicken little tactics of these unethical organizations.

Was that supposed to be a question, or were you just cheering me on, "you have skills!, you have skills!" Thanks for the vote of confidence, means a lot coming from you.

I heard Moore say that he gets a lot of his funding from Canada. Anybody ever listen to Michael Savage? There's a guy who the CRTC would never let through...

What is your definition of a 'wealth creator'? It seems to me that you may be equating the concept of 'wealth creation' with 'wealth possession'. If so, you may end up advocating socially irresponsible incentivisation. My definition of wealth creators are motivated people like potential doctors, scientists, entrepreneurs, artists and business leaders. We have put ourselves in a positition left with only the mediocre. It's a liberal myth that most wealth is inherited. Most wealth is created by hard working people who have incentives to do so.

Hi LLL, no I'm sorry BD did not put that in. It was merely my imagination projecting a snotty fake british accent on the "no one of consequence considers her to be anything but a clown" comment.

Talk about a loaded question. Well son, like I've stated before, I like Alberta. I have lived in the USA and loved it. However, there are raging liberals there to deal with as well. Alberta is more conservative than the blue states. Believe it or not I believe in many policies claimed as liberal. I like gun control (not the registry), I like public health care, I support effective and logical environmentalism, I support compassionate programs for helping the poor. I just don't like liberals and their hypocrisy. In short my family is here, and for me that is important. I suppose when the time comes that MS and Ceasar types have their way and raise my taxes, enforce state education of my pre-school children, outlaw religion, and shove the rest of their socialist agenda down my throat, I'll leave and take my skills and my money with me. Until then I'll stay and enjoy this wonderful conservative island of prosperity.